Skip to main content
6:00 am
under the old policy you had entire career fields closed to women entirely. you could have everybody from justin bieber on up joining certain m.o.s.'s and career fields and not a single at a time when we were trying to hit targets and recruiting tools. we do not care how strong you are. you are not going to be in aav vehicles. that is not something you can compete for. i cannot help but think that the recruiting impact is one thing that may have been in the minds of the people who said this policy has to change. looking forward, are you going to have a situation -- is there going to be any career fields left when we are telling people , no way.
6:01 am
do not think about it. do not try. not just in the career field. these are not just some weird specialize in tunis. they are the core mission career skills -- these are not just some weird specialized careers. there is a problem that has been alluded to. when people come home from combat duty and the people work does not match your battle scars at all. we have heard this. people say, this case is about officers wanting promotions. i have talked to the four women who have come forward on this. when the stock to of the women who of the cited for various other reasons that it would not be the best idea for them to do this lawsuit. they have constitutional rights as well. we have women and veterans, too.
6:02 am
some of them were out with female engagement teams in afghanistan with 120 guys that they call my guys were my brothers. they have encountered come back and they had people killed and were suffering. the minutes and came home, because that was not on paper, they said, that unit could not cut me orders. i had to immediately go back to my real units. i was over there with them. the guys were all morning together. they were being given certain treatment and put through a process that happens when your battle but the skills in front of you and they were not a part of that. that is a terrible way to treat our soldiers. i thought it was enlightening to unity debate about attacks versus -- attached versus the
6:03 am
organically in the unit. that is not only upsetting, but it is not a way to treat our troops. the last one i wanted to talk about is the game playing one on assisting people work. when i got into this area, i learned it was not just a sign versus attached. it was in support of, temporary attachment. there was a lot of game playing with people had their lives on the line. i am concerned and worried when i hear the announcement about whether certain units or special operations forces -- if you read the paper, women have been going out with the special operation forces and units. when all know about the woman who was killed when she was doing an operation with the army rangers. it was pretty widely reported.
6:04 am
are we going to continue to have came playing? are we going to say we need to use women when we need to use them, but they are not in the unit's? i will be keeping a close eye -- in the unit'? i will be keeping a close eye on that. we heard so many ways that the old policy was implemented. i do not think it but he claims commanders in the field. they said direct down, that means well forward on the battlefield. some people say that means we will not send women's in in the first 15 minutes of a raid. some people say we will not send women out when it is a nighttime raid. some people say you will not ride in the first two congress of the convoy. you will not be the -- first two
6:05 am
cars of the convoy. you will say, the last commander sent me out at night. i do not know why you will not jumble are we going to see more of that or will that -- i do not know why you will not? i know that was not getting out of the weeds. i am very detail oriented. it touches >> on the implications in challenges we are going to have and the town -- kind of accountability moving forward. we are going to turn now to the legislative assistant to the democrat from california in veterans affairs. given us some perspective on how we are looking at it from the hill perspective.
6:06 am
>> i feel a little out of place. i am not a professor or a lawyer. i am a person who helps my boss on military formulation of women's issues. congresswoman sanchez wanted to be here. she was called in to international travel for a security conference. i am here replacing her for the time being. since the start of her career, she has been on the house armed services committee. she is currently the second- highest ranking democrat on the committee. this has been an issue that has been on her heart. she was there when the former chairman, duncan hunter, wanted women to be in the military. she continued to fight, but she was pushed to the side. this was not just by the republicans, but also by the
6:07 am
democrats. it has been a halt -- hard- fought battle. and she heard it happens, she was definitely speechless. she did not know what to say. when we were working on the national defense authorization act and she decided to introduce an amendment, we have to work in a way where it would not come up and say, let's repeal the entire policy. let's give commanders the flexibility to assign women to wherever they need to be, wherever they meet the needs of the battle grounds. that was replaced, substituted by an amendment of a report that came out in february. that is how the report came out. that started it going, a little more press, a little more engaging in this topic. we decided to present this
6:08 am
caucus called the women in the military caucus. it was formed in order to develop a forum where we can discuss this issue. it was such a, do not touch this issue kind of deal. she just wanted this time and this form to get into the details of this policy and bring in experts to talk about this. we had a couple of briefings here and there. for all defense policies and congressional laws, it goes into the national defense authorization act. for the entire year, what i am doing is can he ready for that time. it is extremely difficult to get past all of the challenges in order to get that provision into the bill. especially for a democrat and
6:09 am
republican majority congress, it is extremely hard. we continued to fight and we continued to introduce amendments and bills saying let's repeal this policy. we get a couple of co-sponsors here and there. it never really made it anywhere, except for the that the firm wanted the voice to be heard. with secretary panetta coming out and repeal of this policy is incredible. she is extremely excited, but concerned in terms of implementation, making sure the three deadlines on that, making sure the oversight is there, and making sure the right people are looking at it. we talked about the time lines, but there are three main gates. 2013 when the services have to
6:10 am
give their implementation plans. they have to report to congress, the 30 day rule. they can start develop -- developing, the viewing, and validating the implementation standards. it opens up discussions in conversations in terms of the training and qualification requirements, something we cannot do because of this policy. with this, by september 2015, the services will have to come up with validated, gender neutral occupation standards to assign service members accordingly. on january 1, 2016, that is d- day ask the. no members, we will do our part -- on january 1, 2016, that is
6:11 am
d-day as congressional. members -- as congressional members, we will do our part. we are getting opposition. no surprise. senator inhofe from oklahoma, the ranking republican on the second armed services committee, is hoping to conclude a provision basically stating that women should not be allowed in certain m.o.s.'s. duncan hunter does not say women should not be assigned to certain units. he is hoping he can but in a revision that requires gender neutral standards have to be met in order for women to be in
6:12 am
comeback. that sounds like, that was -- that is what secretary panetta said and that is what we are asking for. if he is able to include this and congress cut involved, everything gets delayed. every time a service decides they are: to change the requirements -- every time a service decides they are going to change the requirements, the service have to report back to congress. that starts to ask del it.ays -- starts delays for all of the. -- that starts delays.
6:13 am
we need the help of all of you. lobby congress and tell them your story. that is what is going to make the difference. the reason why we are here is not because of congress or anyone else. it is because the murky servicewoman have done and the sacrifices they have made. and have already proven they can do it. it is now changing the language of it. hopefully, we can be of assistance. we will definitely try to provide oversight and accountability and make sure the right people are making the decisions. i think that is about it. >> thank you very much. it is sobering when you describe the kinds of loopholes and real challenges in front of us. it begs for another symposium to
6:14 am
drill down on those challenges. thank you for sharing those comments with us. our second panelists here today is a visiting professor and director >> at georgetown university. he is a security -- teaching at georgetown university. he is going to look at how other international agendas like the women in peace and security agenda may be of support in this effort, given perspective there. we were talking before, talking about what is our notion of war moving forward and how might that fit into this picture? robert? >> that was a tall order for a five minute presentation.
6:15 am
i was looking at the latest issue of the economist and has a story presented why the world should look at the nordic countries. i will start with the broader issues of military effectiveness and then i will talk about the rest and see how far you let me go. we have talked about effectiveness and standards to achieve the effectiveness. we need to break that down a bit. he courts task of military organizations is to win the nation's wars. that is the standard we create at the individual level and the ahead of a dance and the unit level. what do the wars of today look like. what types of activities are military units asked to perform?
6:16 am
it seems to be quite a mismatch between our standards and our perception of what proper war is and what we are actually doing in the future and today in afghanistan and iraq. we should throw this concept of military effectiveness up in the air and ask, what are they actually doing call there? how do we measure success of military operations? it is not just combat successes that are of the successes of the military. it is the ability on the grounds, it is the protection of civilians, it is preventing r ape of women in combat zones. if we throw military effectiveness of in iraq and ask how we can redefine, we have to
6:17 am
redefine the standards by which we judge the effectiveness of the units and the individuals in those units. there are a number of standards for old school war that still applies. the physical ones. we are mostly concerned about those things when it comes to the integration of women. one is physical standards. that has been covered zero months. i have nothing to act on that issue. -- that has been covered already. there is also military cohesion. there is a certain amount of violence in the culture and where your mindset is to be effective in war. i would like to question that. some of the major failures in the last decade are due to this warrior mine set. a much to -- due to this warrior mine set -- mindset.
6:18 am
we are assuming we of got it right. we can integrate women. we cannot damage the stand as we have, the organizational culture. how can we do this without damaging the perk the culture we already have. it is wrong to think in those terms -- how can we do this without damaging the perfect culture we already have. we have to integrate military cultures with women. the introduction of women at the unit level will improve the culture and the effectiveness of units in contemporary warfare. let's not assume there is a risk
6:19 am
of negative outcomes in terms of effectiveness. let's think in terms of how we can be better at women fighting the nation's wars. that was the broader issues. there is another broader issue i would like to address. that is the united nations security council resolution 1325. the women's peace and security issue attached to this. since we are trying to achieve protection of civilians and preventing rape, military effectiveness is linked to the other issues. we have to think about women's rights. they go hand in hand abroad as well as at home. with that, let's look at the swedish experience. sweden is often seen as a role
6:20 am
model in terms of gender equality and women's rights in the international community. perhaps rightly so. when we looked at the militant organization, all of the political obstacles were removed in 1981. that is where you are right. 1981. i would not go that far. it took 13 years of dragging their feet before the military organization removed the formal obstacles. in 1981, all of the form of obstacles disappeared. we have a completely gender- neutral swedish armed forces today. it sounds like there is a success story, but it is not. women's career paths are slow. there are no women in senior
6:21 am
positions in the swedish armed forces despite the political obstacles being removed in 1981. perhaps a heads up. this was the first step. there is a wrong -- long road in removing hidden structures, subjective standards of assessment, an organizational culture that will continue to limit the integration of women into the armed forces. the second one is a success story. when it has been successful to integrate women, it has been done through the lens of military effectiveness and not through the lens of women's rights. the implementation of resolution 1325 in the swedish armed forces was separated completely from human resources and women's recruitment in the armed forces and looked at as a military effectiveness issue. that meant that they finally
6:22 am
spoken language of the military commanders. you need a gender advisers to perform effectively in afghanistan. you need women interpreters. all kinds of arguments why this would increase the effectiveness of military organizations in the field and in combat. that meant they were allowed to drive a wedge into the organizations. there are gender field advisors everywhere. there are mixed engagement teams in afghanistan. there are gender coach is helping senior commanders switch military forces and understand gender issues better. there is a center for gender in military operations that focuses on employment, training, cohesion. that has come purely through the
6:23 am
lens of military effectiveness and has nothing to do with women's rights. of course, once you have that platform in the organization, you can do all kinds of things. there is no doubt that women's rights and equality issues where the foundation of these developments. that is what the political decision was taken in 1981. the way it was successful was through the lens of military effectiveness. that is a tactical, strategic lesson in terms of implementation for the future. thank you very much. >> thank you robert. it gives us a lot of food for thought. our head of the office of global women's issues talks about the effectiveness whether it is development or security. it is about effectiveness.
6:24 am
i am looking at my watch. this is an amazing panel. i want to open it up for q & a. keep your comments or your comments brief. if not, i have a whole set of questions. i think we have a microphone if you could take a second. we will bring the microphone your way. we are being recorded here. thank you. if you would introduce yourself. >> i just returned from afghanistan in august. i spent the year doing tender integration and human-rights. the-gender integration and human rights. we were trying to -- gender integration and human rights. they thought that if it was about gender, and had to be a
6:25 am
woman. they tried to bring women into these positions, but we had no haven't yet on that joint staff that was willing to fight. you have to look at tender on the battlefield. gender -- u.s. to look at gender on the battlefield -- you have to look at gender on the battlefield. >> it cannot be an attachment for a policy from the top down. it has to be integrated and understood as a men and women's issue. some of our lessons learned from afghanistan and iraq -- a less men are involved in this effort, women become another
6:26 am
assignment and detached. >> men have to realize they have a gender, too. women are seen as the gender and the problem. then have the agenda, too. it is equally constrained by biology and culture. that is a fascinating question about how to open up and start the dialogue. that is exactly right. >> i would add one last thought. we are talking about hyper- notions of masculinity. all of our discussions focused on women. we have to step back and think about culture as societies and institutions and how we look at what it means to become a man in society. is the only way through violence or conflict?
6:27 am
we are looking at this around the world. please, robert? >> if we agree that a gender perspective is something that increases the effectiveness, then we have implementation. we had a discussion that it should be special functions .ttached to the unit' should we implements them or have female engagement teams? female engagement teams that are attached to the regular unit, they are necessary steps before we reach full integration. if gender approaches are important for effectiveness, all the events at all levels should -- all units at all levels
6:28 am
should integrate them. >> i will try to get to somebody less not at a question. introduce yourself please. >> i am with wittman enabled. i would like to thank everyone on the panel for the wonderful -- i am with women enable. i would like to thank everybody on the panel for the wonderful presentation. i spent six years in the marine corps. i did not want the panel to shy away from biology. i do not think the state of 1's
6:29 am
biology increases or a facts military effectiveness. but i was in okinawa in 1962, i was carrying a pack on my back, arching up a mountain. beside me were okinawan women who were balancing a large straw basket on top of their eggs. the ballot -- to the baskets were filled with ice and coca- cola. when the enemies were captured on the top of the mountain, we would take a break. my point is, these women in okinawa were walking right along me climbing the mountains with as much weight and burdens as i had in my military gear. that is what changed my way of thinking that i was initially wrong in assuming that women
6:30 am
with the weaker sex. they are not. thank you. [laughter] >> i have a question about perception. there was a woman who wrote an op-ed in the washington times the spoke about how women were not fit to be in combat. here i was working the night shift in baghdad. i wrote to her and said, what gives you the right to think i should not be here? you have not been in the military. what gives you the voice to say that? when i contacted the military, they refused to allow me to write a rebuttal for her op-ed piece. what can we do in the media to make this more of a visual
6:31 am
issue. it seems that women get all of the media for doing the bad things. we do not have enough visibility on this. what is your opinion on getting the media out there and knowing the positive things that women are doing in combat environments? >> there are a number of ways women are starting to combat this in the media and telling your stories. some of them i have already mentioned. writing your stories, telling your stories, putting them out there. put them in a memoir. there was an article in the small warsaw journal that has been widely read by people -- small wars journal that has been widely read by people. litigation is effected. if you watch any television, you will see the six plaintiffs
6:32 am
here. the sergeant major has managed to keep herself a little quieter. if you want to tell the story, now is a receptive moment to that. the captain was on the daily show the other night. they had a professor -- i will not name him. ms. donnelly goes on shows. was she on with you? i do not know. now is the time. it is a beautiful moment. i got an out ed yesterday from the oregonian. it was by somebody who has been
6:33 am
retired for quite some time. you may be thinking, do i want to put my name out there. for those of you who are veterans and to not mind telling a story, it is a great moment. the media is hungering. we have been flooded. i am here with a bunch of my colleagues, including my counsel from the law firm that is doing the case with us. and our media liaison is here. it is the time. they are here. washington times. hello. welcome. head on over to christina after the panel and rebut away. i am every proud -- read -- proud of people for speaking up.
6:34 am
express have been toiling on this issue. much of the public has to dial to women's issues and the war altogether. uned out to out -- t women's issues and the war altogether. >> you cannot leave it to the politicians with the lawyers. we have to have you speak up. we have e-mails from gq. they want to talk to you.
6:35 am
>> this day has been there is a laboratory, and rightly so. one thing i would like to -- this day has been celebratory, and rightly so. one thing i would like to bring up is that when you look at sexual harassment that falls under the banner of sex discrimination, the courts have been explicit about people in the military not having the same civil rights that their civilian counterparts do. service members cannot bring constitutional tort claims. given that they are deprived of those tools, was a force men look like? how can we ensure there is a remedy the would-what does
6:36 am
enforcement look like? -- what does and forced it look like? how can we insure that there are remedies? >> it would be interesting to see if you have any response on that. >> i am not a lawyer. the military's death of the falls under a eighth of the plea -- to a different -- the military definitely falls under a different justice system. this was not something that had to be companies -- had to be legislated. i can definitely tell you that we will be pursuing this as legislation so that it is law and that they have to meet these integration mandates. from the outside congressional
6:37 am
perspective, that is what our goal will be this year, to keep them accountable. >> i think it is equally important to understand why it happens to the extent it does. they are doing it for what reasons timbale and interesting study in sweden shows -- they are doing it for the right reasons? there was an existing story in sweden. it goes with the culture and we were talking about the dinosaurs. it was not of them. it was the appearance, the young guys. it was a competition situation. they are struggling for the same position. a power tool rather than a cultural thing.
6:38 am
we need to get those things as well. >> what we define as a real man in this sense. the stasi when people are trying to move up that ladder. thank you for that -- especially when people are trying to move up that ladder. we have time for one more comment. >> our forces are 5% female. we have all of these new conditions, or we are about to. if we open the infantry up and few females want to be in the infantry, is that a steelyard? do we really need the numbers? -- is it a failure?
6:39 am
>> it depends on what the purpose is. if you are talking about equal opportunity, it is the opportunities that are measured and not the outcomes. if there are limitations and increased numbers that argue to structural organization and cultural things, it is not just legal opportunity at stake. it is something else. it depends on why we are not seen that increase. if there are hidden structures limiting it, it is clearly a failure. >> we are focusing on the occupational specialty. but there are people are in .upport m.o.s.'s
6:40 am
we will probably see a broader investment in that. >> based on my unscientific survey and talking to people, i am and not that worried about this. i have heard from many people when i enlisted and when i first commissioned, i wanted to do this, i wanted to get there. i wanted to be close to the fight. now they will set, after i have served seven years, i realize i do not want to be in the infantry. from the get go, they did. people want to do that, i do not think there will be such a deist. i cannot imagine we are talking about one or -- i do not imagine there will be such a dearth.
6:41 am
i did not see any lack of that going forward. >> one last question. >> in case you cannot crack the washington times, there is a robust discussion taking place on the editorial pages in small and mid-sized papers around the country. reich to your hometown papers. rights to the editors -- right to your hometown papers. tell them you have a story to tell. there are some other public relations folks. we are happy to help.
6:42 am
my job is to train the attorneys and the clients and help them write. a shout out to christina. she is a fair reporter. she is not on the editorial staff. talk to her because she is here to share your stories. we have had a lot of good luck working with her. >> in terms of the media, for us congressional aides and congressional members, we get a lot of inquiries. one of the things that ask is, do you know anyone who can talk on this. i encourage our service women who want to speak up about this to visit any one of us. there are two or three women on the armed services committee including chemical -- tammy the courts, who is a veteran.
6:43 am
-- tammy duckworth, who is a veteran. >> it is helpful to have international field perspective. of course, the legal perspective than the passion behind all of this. i appreciate you bringing that forward. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> yesterday was hillary clinton's last day as secretary of state. she gave a speech in which he
6:44 am
thanked state department's employees. former senator john kerry has been sworn in as the next secretary.
6:45 am
>> the afternoon, everyone. madam secretary, you have done enormous good for all of us and for the country we serve. we will miss you deeply. [cheers and applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. madam secretary, four years ago, i stood on this same spot and had the honor of introducing you to the men and women of the department of state. from that first day on, you have touched the lives of millions and millions of people around the world, you have left a profoundly positive mark on american foreign policy, and you have done enormous but for all of us and for the country we served. we will miss you deeply, but none of us -- [applause] but none of us will ever forget your extraordinary leadership, and each of us will always be deeply proud to say that we served in hillary clinton's state department. [cheers and applause] and so now it's my great honor to introduce one last time, the 67 the secretary of state of the united states for america, hillary rodham clinton. [cheers and applause]
6:46 am
>> oh. thank you. thank you. oh. well, just, all of you, the people i have been honored to serve and lead and work with over the last four years, is an incredible experience. when i came in to this building as secretary of state four years ago, and received such a warm welcome, i knew there was something really special about this place, and that having the honor to lead at the state department and usaid would be unique and singular, exciting
6:47 am
and challenging. it has been all of those things and so much more. i cannot fully express how grateful i am to those with whom i have spent many hours here in washington, around the world, and in airplanes. [laughter] but i am proud of the work we have done to elevate diplomacy and development, to serve the nation we all love, to understand the challenges, the threats, and the opportunities that the united states faces, and to work with all our heart and all our might to make sure that america is secure, that our interests and our values are
6:48 am
respected. as i look back over these past four years, i am very proud of the work we have done together. of course, we live in very complex and even dangerous times, as we saw again just today at our embassy in ankara, where we were attacked and lost one of our foreign service nationals and others injured. but i spoke with the ambassador and the team at there, spoke with my turkish counterpart, and i told them how much we've valued the commitment and their sacrifice.
6:49 am
i know that the world we are trying to help bring into being in the 21st century will have many difficult days. but i am more optimistic today than i was when i stood here four years ago, because i have seen a day after day the many contributions that our diplomats and development experts are making to help ensure that this century provides the kind of peace, progress, and prosperity that not just the united states, especially young people so richly deserve. i am very proud to have been secretary of state. i will miss you, i will probably be dialing ops just to talk. [laughter]
6:50 am
i will wonder what you all are doing, because i know that because of your efforts day after day, we are making a real difference. but i lead in this department confident, confident about the direction we have sat, confident that the process of the qddr, which for the first time has enabled us to ask hard questions about what we do, how we do it, whether we can do it even better, because state and aid always have to be learning organizations. we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the president, we owe it to the american people. and so i will be an advocate from outside for the work that you continue to do here and at
6:51 am
aid. so it has been quite challenging week saying goodbye to so many people, and knowing that i will not have the opportunity to continue to be a part of this amazing team. but i am so grateful that we have had a chance to contribute in each of our ways, making our country and our world stronger, safer, fairer, and better. those of you who are staying, as many of you will, please know that i hope that he will redouble your efforts to do all that you can to demonstrate unequivocally why diplomacy is right up there with defense.
6:52 am
it is because we are united and committed to do whatever is required to fulfill the missions we have assumed as public officials and public servants. so next week, i would expect that all of you will be as focused and dedicated for secretary kerry as you have been for me, and that you will continue to serve president obama and our nation with the same level of professionalism and commitment that i have seen firsthand. on a personal basis, let me wish all of you the very best, whether you have been here all
6:53 am
week, or 30, or even 40 years, pat. [laughter] let me give you the very best wishes that i can, because i am proud to have been a part of you. i leave thinking of the nearly 70,000 people that i was honored to serve and leave as part of a huge extended family, and i hope that you will continue to make yourselves, make me, and make our country proud. thank you all, and god bless you. [cheers and applause]
6:54 am
[cheers and applause]
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
>> do not put such unlimited power in the hands of husbands.
6:59 am
if particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion. >> abigail adams, wife of the second president and one of the women who served as first lady in the c-span original series, "first ladies, influence and image." their influence on the president. produced with the white house historical association, season one begins presidents' day, february 18, on c-span and cease in real. >> "washington journal" is next. live with your phone calls. a look at facial recognition technology. and senator ron wyden talks about the global internet. in 45 minutes, a discussion on the latest unemployment figures. later,

Politics Public Policy Today
CSPAN February 2, 2013 6:00am-7:00am EST


TOPIC FREQUENCY Afghanistan 6, Washington 5, Iraq 3, Sweden 3, Clinton 2, Panetta 2, Georgetown University 2, Duncan 2, Okinawa 2, Wittman 1, Christina 1, Inhofe 1, Ms. Donnelly 1, Nation 1, Sanchez 1, Justin Bieber 1, United Nations 1, Uned 1, From Gq 1, Oregonian 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 2/2/2013